Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 24STCV28613, Date: 2025-03-26 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: March 26, 2025

Case Name: Immigrant Rights Defense Council, LLC  v. Vargas, et al.

Case No.: 24STCV25384 

Matter: Motion for Protective Order

Moving Party: Defendant Josefina Hernandez

Responding Party: Plaintiff Immigrant Rights Defense Council, LLC

Notice: OK

Ruling: The Motion is denied.

Moving party to give notice.

The Court encourages all parties to appear remotely via LA CourtConnect.  If submitting on the Court's tentative ruling, please follow the instructions provided above.

On January 2, 2025, Plaintiff Immigrant Rights Defense Council, LLC filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against Defendants Jennifer Vargas and Josefina Hernandez for injunctive relief pursuant to the Immigration Consultant Act (“ICA”).

On March 24, 2025, the Court overruled the demurrers to the FAC and mostly denied the corresponding motions to strike.

Defendant Hernandez now seeks a protective order precluding a response to Plaintiff’s requests for production.  Defendant argues that (a) there should not be discovery when the FAC is defective and (b) the requests are overbroad.

Good cause must be shown for the protective order, and the issuance and formulation of the protective order are within the Court’s discretion.  (See, e.g., Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 60, 106-7; Raymond Handling Concepts Corp. v. Superior Court (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 584, 588.)

Defendant’s first argument is rejected as the FAC survived Defendants’ demurrers.

The second argument is also rejected.  The Court will not hold a prophylactic hearing on a motion to compel by deciding which requests should be answered at this juncture.  Defendants can assert objections where appropriate and then the parties can meet and confer in good faith prior to resorting to further motion practice.  

The Motion is denied.  No sanctions. 

Moving party to give notice.